[guest39538]

Imagine two large masses a distance S apart. Now remove those two objects. What is the value of S? Has it changed since the masses were removed? Does it even have the same meaning with no masses to reference?

That part is what I have asked, I have this feeling you know what I am saying with my asking, I have this feeling you back down under pressure and dare not defend my idea in fear of ridicule.

Alan -'' This was answered way back on 29 January, Reply #1.''


In which you said there was no contraction of space distance or length.

[alancalverd]

Intelligence is best defined as the ability to surprise the observer - every other definition seems to reduce to an ability to deduce and follow rules devised by the observer, which is pretty much the antithesis of science.   

So far, I've been informed, amused and confused by a lot of what I have read in this forum, but the kiss of scientific approval ("Bloody hell, that's clever") has rarely passed my lips since reading Einstein on Relativity whilst listening to the Beatles. It was the use of Bbmajor instead of the expected minor in "I saw her standing there" that, like the opening augmented 7th in "Margie" a generation earlier, raised the entire oeuvre    from the quondam to the inspiriert. Of course one would never make the soi-tromperie of confusing sixth-form pretentiousness with  νοῦς.

[alancalverd]

Alan -'' This was answered way back on 29 January, Reply #1.''


In which you said there was no contraction of space distance or length.

No, I said

If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer.

If you don't read the bloody answer, what's the point of asking the bloody question?

[guest39538]

Alan -'' This was answered way back on 29 January, Reply #1.''


In which you said there was no contraction of space distance or length.

Relative to  the observer a stationary reference frame, an invariant, a constant.
The sum of all values = 0

∑=0

[guest39538]

Alan -'' This was answered way back on 29 January, Reply #1.''


In which you said there was no contraction of space distance or length.

No, I said

If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer.

If you don't read the bloody answer, what's the point of asking the bloody question?

I read the answer then tried to discuss the answer, then it got confusing because people said I was wrong etc, that is the impression I got,

[guest39538]

So by length contraction you actually mean length compression of a moving body?

And in saying that a moving body must also have a height expansion/decompression?


L=x

x+v=<x

<x=>y

So in vacuum a spring travels at the near speed of light, what force makes the spring compress?  acceleration?  can't be speed

[Colin2B]

So by length contraction you actually mean length compression of a moving body?

No, it is called length contraction so it doesnt get confused with compression. Compression implies pressure or pushing inwards. This is space changing, imagine a stretched rubber band, draw a line on it, now let the band contract and the line is shorter. Gravity and speed affect the stretch of spacetime.

And in saying that a moving body must also have a height expansion/decompression?

No, just length in the direction of movement.

So in vacuum a spring travels at the near speed of light, what force makes the spring compress?  acceleration?  can't be speed

Explain why it can't be speed.
Remember there is no force compressing the spring

[alancalverd]

As Colin says, contraction, as observed by a second party moving relative to the stick, not compression, which would be observed by a traveller on the stick.

You can avoid a lot of confusion by using the same words as everyone else.

[guest39538]

As Colin says, contraction, as observed by a second party moving relative to the stick, not compression, which would be observed by a traveller on the stick.

You can avoid a lot of confusion by using the same words as everyone else.

So let me get this right, space-time you really mean light?

length contraction you are on about the angles of an object relative to light?

 [ Invalid Attachment ]




You  mean light contracts relative to the observer?

[Colin2B]

So let me get this right, space-time you really mean light?

No, we said spacetime we meant spacetime, not light

length contraction you are on about the angles of an object relative to light?

You  mean light contracts relative to the observer?

No, light remains the same speed for all observers when we consider movement in special relativity.
We are not talking about the angles of light relative to an object, but sometimes that can be used as an analogy.
Reread what I wrote first about the stretching of spacetime.

[guest39538]

So let me get this right, space-time you really mean light?

No, we said spacetime we meant spacetime, not light

length contraction you are on about the angles of an object relative to light?

You  mean light contracts relative to the observer?

No, light remains the same speed for all observers when we consider movement in special relativity.
We are not talking about the angles of light relative to an object, but sometimes that can be used as an analogy.
Reread what I wrote first about the stretching of spacetime.

Huh?  now I am back to square one, what do you mean by ''This is space changing'',  ?


How exactly can space change when space is not made of anything ?  What are you suggesting changes?

There is no proven ether, there is no solidity, the values are zero, so how can zero change?

[Ethos_]

There is no proven ether, there is no solidity, the values are zero, so how can zero change?

Think for a moment about what you just said; "there is no solidity". This example is not the reason for length contraction but may help you understand how it could happen.

[Colin2B]

space is not made of anything ....... the values are zero, so how can zero change?

please prove this

And also you didnt answer my queston

Explain why it can't be speed

[alancalverd]

So let me get this right, space-time you really mean light?

No. If I had meant light, I would have written light. And I haven't mentioned space-time at all.

Just read the words on the bloody card!

[guest39538]

So let me get this right, space-time you really mean light?

No. If I had meant light, I would have written light. And I haven't mentioned space-time at all.

Just read the words on the bloody card!

My apologies, it was Colin who mentioned stretching of space-time.

As Colin says, contraction, as observed by a second party moving relative to the stick, not compression, which would be observed by a traveller on the stick.

You can avoid a lot of confusion by using the same words as everyone else.

I have read this about 3 times and still observe no contraction.

Let us use a surfer on a surfboard surfing in space, and parallel to the surfer is another surfer travelling the same speed and direction.


s1→→→→→

s2→→→→→


So what am I looking at in this scenario that contracts?

a. the length of the surf board?

b. the distance?

[jeffreyH]

No, I said

If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer.

If you don't read the bloody answer, what's the point of asking the bloody question?

Thebox please read Alan's answer above through as many times as necessary. It tells you ALL you need to know. You can even come back and ask questions if it is not exactly clear. There is a subtle distinction in what Alan has said that you might miss.

[guest39538]

No, I said

If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer.

If you don't read the bloody answer, what's the point of asking the bloody question?

Thebox please read Alan's answer above through as many times as necessary. It tells you ALL you need to know. You can even come back and ask questions if it is not exactly clear. There is a subtle distinction in what Alan has said that you might miss.

Yes I have read that too, several times now, it sounds like Alan is saying space is an invariant but a stick if it moves shrinks in length.


Without an opposing force to the direction of the stick I do not see how this is possible.   

Where can I view the observation evidence of this?

[timey]

Yes Space Flow, (chuckle)  I truly know the feeling!  Have you read 'The Trouble with Physics' Lee Smolin?

No I have not read his book and to tell you the truth I have no intention to.
I 110% agree with his views and basically have learned to avoid the subjects of "String theory", "M theory", "God", Multiverse, or any other religion you want to name.
There is a definition of what can be classed as a theory within the confines of the scientific method and none of those qualify.
Therefore I have no interest in reading or hearing any more about them.
If your idea can not make a testable prediction, it is not a "scientific" theory.
At best it is a hypothesis.

I don't know why you wouldn't be interested in Lee Smolin's book.  It basically echoes your sentiments here exactly, and illustrates each part of everything within physics that does not match up.

Hope all went well with surgeon.

[timey]

  Can you tell me who these others are please?  It's just that I'm now making an assessment of your intelligence, and I'm quite sure I'll find that your own assessment of a persons intelligence will help me...

I'll let you make up your own mind on that one my friend. Here is a key that will help you make the informed decision: Read through their posts, when you find contradictions and errors, their intelligence becomes quite evident.

And as far as your assessment of my intelligence, if I may be so blunt; The honest search for reality is more important than intelligence. One can be quite intelligent, but if they are dishonest enough to dismiss evidence offhand just to preserve their own vision of reality, they will never achieve any thing of significance. It takes both timey, intelligence and an honest assessment of experimental observation, whether those observations fit in neatly with ones biased predisposed positions or not.

Ah... Hmmmm, OK, Lol,  I can see that I might have to start reading your posts...

(Don't mind me too much, just having myself a mild troll)

[timey]

BTW, Alan, it hasn't surprised me in the slightest that nobody has asked if I think I'm more intelligent than you or Jeff. 

We were taking that as an axiom   []

Oh, goodly, good Colin, I'm sooooo glad that I'm a member!  ...But could we please make that an 'absolute axiom'?  S'got a better ring to it!

But...even though I hesitate to over complicate the matter, in the interests of honesty I fear it must be done!  So...having established the fact that 'we' think that I think I am more intelligent than both Alan and Jeff - on the basis that because I come from a socially outer space non schooled and self taught perspective, I have come from a place where I bring no absolute meter stick with which you may measure us against each other...therefore perhaps my intelligence cannot be considered an invariant and 'is' actually relative.

Congrats on becoming a moderator, btw!  It's cleared something up for me, as I was wondering if the mods got a cut on all this new advertising on the forum, but I think it pretty much goes without saying that the inclusion of a fresh one at this point rules this thought out... (chuckle)
Now I was thinking of mentioning that I remember a post where Alan said he used to be a trade unionist, but it occurs that I might need to ask Chris a favour one of these days, so I'll just stick a sock in it